Manav Vikas Bahuuddeshiya Gramin Seva Sanstha v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 7251 OF 2024 (Manav Vikas Bahuuddeshiya Gramin Seva Sanstha Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune at Nagpur) and WRIT PETITION NO. 7249 OF 2024 (Manav Vikas Bahuuddeshiya Gramin Seva Sanstha Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Pune at Nagpur) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's ordersappearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.D. Dhande, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Bhushan Mohta, Advocate for respondent CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE &ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.DATED:03-03-2025 Heard, Mr. Dhande, learned Counsel for the petitioner.The petition questions the order dtd. 25.7.2024 passed by therespondent, refusing to condone the delay of 687 days in filingaudit report in form 10B for the accounting years 2016-17,which came to be filed on 18.8.2018. The reason given fordelay, is that the Charted Account of the petitioner was notaware of online filing which was newly introduced and thatmistake was unintentional and oversight. According to therespondent, that is not a genuine reason for grant ofcondonation of delay u/s 119(b) of the Income Tax Act. 2.Though Mr. Mohta, the learned counsel for respondentvehemently opposes the petition and justifies the impugnedorder, contending that the reason given is not genuine, wehowever find that application was already filed on 18.8.2018.We also find, that an honest reason has been given on recordfor seeking condonation of delay. Since it is not indispute that the audit report is already filed, not Belkhede condoning the delay would result in non-considerations of theexemptions, and considering that the petitioner is a trust,engaged in providing medical aid to the under privileged,considering what has been held in Al Jamia MohammediyahEducation Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) Mumbai. (2024 DGLS (Bom) 1521) and thenature of work being done by the petitioner and the fact thatthe audit report has already been filed and considering thereason appears to be an honest one, we deem it a fit case tocondone the delay. In view of this, the impugned order isquashed and set aside and the delay in filing the audit reportu/s 10B for the accounting years as indicated, is quashed andset aside. This shall be subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- (RupeesTen Thousand) (in each petition) to be paid to the RamanScience Centre and Planetarium, Subhash Road, Empress City,Nagpur, Maharashtra 440 018. The petitioner is permitted topay the cost to the said Association by NEFT/RTGS or anyother online mode of payment, permissible in law. The Bankdetails of the said Raman Science Centre, Nagpur are asunder:- “Name :- Raman Science Centre and Planetarium, NagpurAccount No. 0306101022235Name of Bank : CANARA BANKBranch Name and Address: Sitabuldi Branch, NagpurIFSC Code : CNRB0000306, MICR Code 440015002” (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)